linux-kernel - Re: [BUGFIX] PM: Fix active child counting when disabled and forbidden

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1211071544110.1188-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:47:02 -0500 (EST)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX] PM: Fix active child counting when disabled and forbidden

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:17:02 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 
> > > > The PCI subsystem assumes that 
> > > > driverless devices are not in use, so they are disabled for runtime PM 
> > > > and marked as suspended.  This is not appropriate for VGA devices, 
> > > > which can indeed be used without a driver.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure what the best solution is.  Maybe we should Ying's 
> > > > proposal a step farther:
> > > > 
> > > > 	Make pm_runtime_set_suspended() fail if runtime PM is 
> > > > 	forbidden.
> > > >
> > > > 	Make pm_runtime_forbid() call pm_runtime_set_active()
> > > > 	(and do a runtime resume of the parent) if disable_depth > 0.
> > > 
> > > I'd prefer this one.
> > 
> > That wasn't meant to be a choice.  The first item is close to what the 
> > original patch did; I was suggesting that we should adopt all three 
> > items.
> 
> OK, I need to think about this a bit more, then.
> 
> The problem seems to be that our initial assumption, ie. that driverless
> devices won't be in use, is not satisfied in the relevant case.  It may
> not be satisfied in more cases like this, I suppose, but so far we  don't
> really know.

Right.  The reasoning behind my proposal goes like this: When there's
no driver, the subsystem can let userspace directly control the
device's power level through the power/control attribute.

Alan Stern

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/